Murderer's Mother Receives Standing Ovation from GOP

[Elixir]

"Huge shoutout sent from all of us in WI to warrior @LLinWood. I was able to talk to Kyle by phone & THANK HIM for his courage! #fightback."

Now cold blooded murderers are the heroes of the "Party" (Junta) of the President, the Senate. the DOJ and coming soon, the SCOTUS.
Sickening.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

 

[Axulus]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

The extreme left does not believe there is any legitimate right to self defense for those on the right who bring a gun to a protest area. So yeah, the only thing he would've been allowed to do is either out-run the people that were after him or take his beating.

Note that the use of the word "murderer" implictly makes this assumption, no matter what the facts turn out to be, it couldn't possibly have been legitimate self defense. Thus, it was murder.

 

[laughing dog]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

 

[Axulus]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

If Rittenhouse initiated the aggression by attacking the first guy, such as pointing his gun at him or charging him with intent to attack without first being attacked himself, then the other guy would be engaging in legit self defense and Rittenhouse is a murderer.

The facts of the case should determine whether Rittenhouse is a murderer or not. I strongly disagree with the idea that Rittenhouse is a murderer no matter what actually happened. That just by being in a protest zone with a gun, as dumb as that is, automatically makes one a murderer if they are then attacked unprovoked and they then use said gun and kill the person in a legitimate act of self-defense.

 

[laughing dog]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

If Rittenhouse initiated the aggression by attacking the first guy, such as pointing his gun at him or charging him with intent to attack without first being attacked himself, then the other guy would be engaging in legit self defense and Rittenhouse is a murderer.

The facts of the case should determine whether Rittenhouse is a murderer or not. I strongly disagree with the idea that Rittenhouse is a murderer no matter what actually happened. That just by being in a protest zone with a gun, as dumb as that is, automatically makes one a murderer if they are then attacked unprovoked and they then use said gun and kill the person in a legitimate act of self-defense.

If the attackers said they feared for their lifes which is why they attacked him in self-defense, why would he have the right to self-defense but not them?

 

[laughing dog]

On another note, what kind of mother drives her ARMED teenager to a protest/riot?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

The argument seems to be that whoever is losing a fight, no matter who started it, is the one using self defense.

 

[Axulus]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

If Rittenhouse initiated the aggression by attacking the first guy, such as pointing his gun at him or charging him with intent to attack without first being attacked himself, then the other guy would be engaging in legit self defense and Rittenhouse is a murderer.

The facts of the case should determine whether Rittenhouse is a murderer or not. I strongly disagree with the idea that Rittenhouse is a murderer no matter what actually happened. That just by being in a protest zone with a gun, as dumb as that is, automatically makes one a murderer if they are then attacked unprovoked and they then use said gun and kill the person in a legitimate act of self-defense.

If the attackers said they feared for their lifes which is why they attacked him in self-defense, why would he have the right to self-defense but not them?

Just saying you were in fear for your life because you saw a guy walking around open carrying a gun and he wasn't on your side in the protest, even if accurate and truthful, is not the legal standard to legitimate self defense. The fear must be reasonable. Reasonable fear would arise from Rittenhouse's specific actions, such as pointing his gun at the guy, verbally threatening to shoot him, or charging him for an attack, all unprovoked, which means Rittenhouse is the first agressor. Additonally, if stand your ground does not apply, then you must not also have the ability to escape safely. That seems like a good legal standard. If the facts bear out that something like this occurred, then I agree that Rittenhouse is a murderer and everyone involved in stopping him is either legitimately defending themselves or trying to protect others.

On the otherhand, if Rittenhouse had the reasonable fear for his life, using the same criteria as above, and did not initiate the agression, and did not have the ability to escape the situation safely (if he tried to run away but he got chased down, for example) then he was engaging in legit self defense and should be found not guilty of murder.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

Why do right wing authoritarian followers find it so hard to understand the difference between attack and defense? Considering what that deluded kid did to be "fighting back" is nothing short of psychopathy.

If a kid is bullied the entire school year and then one day fights back, right wing morons consider, at best, that "both sides are the same" because they both committed violence, but most likely will consider the defense to be "attack" after having turned a blind eye to the bully all year.

What is the source or reason for this spectacular perceptive or cognitive deficiency? This is the reason so many people of humane values and principles and education and intelligence consider right wing ideology to be truly harmful to the brains of those who engage in it.

 

[Angry Floof]

On another note, what kind of mother drives her ARMED teenager to a protest/riot?

The kind whose brain is just as pickled in fear mongering, "black people all want to kill us and steal from us and teh cops are poor, cowering victims" fantasies as her son's.

 

[Axulus]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

The argument seems to be that whoever is losing a fight, no matter who started it, is the one using self defense.

Nope. By declaring him a murderer, it means that no matter what the facts are, he committed murder. His actions of going into a protest zone and open carrying nullify any possible right to self defense. That seems to be the main position of those who are branding him a murderer (as the OP does), as far as I can tell, given we don't know all the circumstances that lead to the first shooting.

 

[Toni]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

The argument seems to be that whoever is losing a fight, no matter who started it, is the one using self defense.

I thought the argument was that the white guy is the one using self defense.

A teenager crosses state lines illegally carrying a firearm and goes into a mob of people. Why? He thought he'd be a hero by killing some. And Axulus and his buddies are ready to crown him a hero. What he did was not different than any school shooter, except that his targets were explicitly black, he crossed state lines and HIS MOMMY HELPED HIM. Definitely the stuff of heroes.

 

[J842P]

"Huge shoutout sent from all of us in WI to warrior @LLinWood. I was able to talk to Kyle by phone & THANK HIM for his courage! #fightback."

Now cold blooded murderers are the heroes of the "Party" (Junta) of the President, the Senate. the DOJ and coming soon, the SCOTUS.
Sickening.

He isn't a cold blooded murderer. Indeed, he isn't a murderer at all. The videos are there for all to see, and we've been over this, the kid only shot in self-defense.

 

[J842P]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

Why do right wing authoritarian followers find it so hard to understand the difference between attack and defense? Considering what that deluded kid did to be "fighting back" is nothing short of psychopathy.

If a kid is bullied the entire school year and then one day fights back, right wing morons consider, at best, that "both sides are the same" because they both committed violence, but most likely will consider the defense to be "attack" after having turned a blind eye to the bully all year.

What is the source or reason for this spectacular perceptive or cognitive deficiency? This is the reason so many people of humane values and principles and education and intelligence consider right wing ideology to be truly harmful to the brains of those who engage in it.

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

 

[J842P]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

The argument seems to be that whoever is losing a fight, no matter who started it, is the one using self defense.

I thought the argument was that the white guy is the one using self defense.

A teenager crosses state lines illegally carrying a firearm and goes into a mob of people. Why? He thought he'd be a hero by killing some. And Axulus and his buddies are ready to crown him a hero. What he did was not different than any school shooter, except that his targets were explicitly black, he crossed state lines and HIS MOMMY HELPED HIM. Definitely the stuff of heroes.

Bullshit, Toni. Indeed, none of the people he shot were black, they were all white. And he didn't "target" anyone, he was attacked. In fact, he was even attacked with a gun, twice. Again. All of these facts are part of the public record. You repeating pure falsehoods driven by an ideological narrative.

 

[repoman]

All Jewish, IIRC...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

The extreme left does not believe there is any legitimate right to self defense for those on the right who bring a gun to a protest area. So yeah, the only thing he would've been allowed to do is either out-run the people that were after him or take his beating.

Note that the use of the word "murderer" implictly makes this assumption, no matter what the facts turn out to be, it couldn't possibly have been legitimate self defense. Thus, it was murder.

The idiot went to a protest openly armed. That sounds ridiculously stupid and dangerous.

 

[Ford]

On another note, what kind of mother drives her ARMED teenager to a protest/riot?

That's something you don't hear the right wing/pro gun crowd addressing.

Why? Because despite promoting a veneer of "responsible gun ownership" for years, they have to ignore this flagrant act of irresponsibility in order to push the real message: vigilantism is cool (especially against "the left").

Not only did this mother's actions lead to three people being shot (two fatally) it could have just as easily been her son bleeding out in the street. Would they be cheering for her then?

 

[repoman]

May 28th, St Paul. Cool black guys defending property through open carry.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MediaIndustria1/status/1266177980172316673